I've been trying to stay away from this since it's close to home - but in
our defence just because we're talking about peering doesn't mean it's
settlement free and they wont be compensated for the traffic, especially
should volumes be skewed in any particular direction giving one party
significant advantage over another.
What makes you think our current arrangement for getting to AAPT customers
involves them receiving revenue of any sort? Since they do not currently
directly connect to us they are either paying somebody else to transit to
our network or dropping through a peering link which may or may not be
settlement free.
Macca
-----Original Message-----
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Sean K. Finn
Sent: Thursday, 2 April 2009 1:15 PM
To: 'Mark Smith'; 'Nick Brown'
Cc: 'ausnog at ausnog.net'
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] [Fwd: Re: Go Vocus (Sad pants for AAPT)]
> So if AAPT are refusing to peer with Vocus, it would seem that AAPT
> don't think they'd be receiving approximately equal value for what
> they'd be providing.
Or, the peering arrangement would ..
1. Move traffic from AAPT's paying customers, meaning the value proposition
for AAPT's paying customers is less,
2. Increase VOCUS's reach, thereby giving a competitor in the same space
significant advantage for the same customer dollar.
Breaking into the jam-filled center of the donut is going to be very very
hard.
-S
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.nethttp://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog